---

Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone): We welcome the Government's conversion to the notion of taking counter-demonstrations into consideration.

The Government were bound to have known all along that the problem lay not with legal processions but with illegal opposition to them. We do not object to protests, provided they are within the law and do not go out of their way to stop a lawful parade. Unfortunately, that is what has been happening in Northern Ireland. People who are opposed in principle to parades not only protest but go out of their way to try to stop them. Of course, they have been encouraged in that by the failure of the Royal Ulster Constabulary leadership to deal properly with them under existing legislation. We therefore welcome the new clause.

One question that arises relates to the 14 days' notice. I understand that the commission has announced that it will make a determination five days before a parade is due to be held. It therefore seems more likely that it will be after the determination is known that the protest will be held. It is more likely that notice will be given not under subsection (2)(a) of the new clause, which refers to

"not later than 14 days",

but under subsection (2)(b), which stipulates

"as soon as it is reasonably practicable".

The Minister has spoken a great deal about balance and said that the new clause will provide it. I disagree entirely. The new clause certainly goes some way towards balancing the situation, but it does not go the whole way. The criteria that will be used to judge a protest will to some extent be different from those used to judge a proper parade.

For example, we are told that, when judging a parade--that is, judging whether a determination should be issued in relation to it--the commission will have to take into consideration

"any impact which the procession may have on relationships within the community",

as stated in clause 7(6)(c). As we are talking about parity, perhaps the Minister will explain why, when it comes to a protest in a similar situation, the impact on relations within the community should not be taken into consideration as well. It may well be that in certain circumstances and in a certain community protesters from the other community will come and create havoc, so surely the impact of a protest on relations within the community should be taken into consideration, too.

There is also a lack of parity in the Secretary of State's powers in relation to a protest and to a procession. Under the order, the Secretary of State does not have the power to ban a protest. She can ban all protests for a time, yet under this Bill she can ban a particular procession. That means that there is disparity in this instance, too. The whole thing is still unbalanced. I think that the Minister should consider that imbalance.

4 Feb 1998 : Column 1106

As far as it goes, we welcome the Government's conversion. Unfortunately, the proposal is very late and has only been dragged out of them, whereas it should have been included in the Bill at the very start. In fact, had they added something simple to the existing legislation, it would probably have been more helpful than what they are trying to do now. In any event, we welcome the Government's conversion and hope that the imbalance will be removed. We shall certainly recommend how that can be done.

Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes): I am glad that hon. Members are welcoming the new clause; I think that shows that the Government are listening to the concerns of people in Northern Ireland.

Central to the Bill is the philosophy that people have a right to march and a right to peaceful assembly. With those rights come responsibilities; everyone must recognise that. The key responsibility is to recognise the freedom of others and the right of everyone to live his life without fear and intimidation.

I agree with what was said in Committee to the effect that the majority of the approximately 3,000 parades held in Northern Ireland every year pass off peacefully. Only a few are contested, but it is those contested parades that cast a shadow over Northern Ireland. If we do not deal with those parades, I do not think that there will ever be real peace in Northern Ireland.

I know from experience that a contested parade can be intimidating and cause much fear. I am part of what is wonderfully described in Belfast as a mixed marriage--I am Presbyterian and my husband is Catholic. I have visited my in-laws in north Belfast, which, as those who are familiar with the area know, is a very mixed community where there has always been much tension. I have been there when marches have taken place and I, too, have felt fear and intimidation. No one, from whichever community, should have to put up with the taunts and insults that I heard.

The new clause will enshrine in the Bill rights and responsibilities. It recognises the right to march and the rights of people to protest peacefully, and I am glad that hon. Members have welcomed it.

I have seen many marches in Northern Ireland. As a Presbyterian girl I have accompanied my husband to some spectacular Easter parades--they are part of history and tradition. Similarly, in the countryside in the summer, we have seen Orange Lodge parades, which are likewise part of history and tradition. The few processions that cause the problems--Drumcree is the most recent flash point--are the reason we are discussing this subject. I hope that the new clause will ensure that the protests, aggression, fear and intimidation cease.

Mr. Thompson: Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that, in the areas where there has been trouble, that trouble has been caused mainly by the attempts of Sinn Fein-IRA to stop parades, and that the vast majority of parades pass peaceably because there is no threat from that quarter?

Shona McIsaac: I do not agree. I have seen nationalist as well as Orange parades disrupted in Belfast. Unfortunately, a minority on both sides cause trouble.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Lady will be aware that a number of my colleagues live in Belfast. She has said

4 Feb 1998 : Column 1107

that she has seen nationalist parades disrupted, but can she tell us time and place, as we would be very interested to know?

Shona McIsaac: I am afraid that I cannot give an example from my own experience, but my mother-in-law and father-in-law told me about a parade in north Belfast from Eia street, through Duncairn gardens and into Tigers bay that caused much fear for the Catholic community in the New Lodge.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): I have had parishioners who live in Eia street and I know where Tigers bay is, and I have to tell the hon. Lady that the parade that was impeded was not a nationalist one. It is tragic to mislead the House in any way.

Shona McIsaac: I apologise if I have misled the House. The hon. Gentleman is right, but I am sure that he will agree that the community in the New Lodge area is very mixed and there has been much tension over the years--it has suffered more sectarian killings than most parts of Belfast. I am sure that both communities there want the killings to stop and want once again to live in peace.

As I said, I am glad that hon. Members welcome the new clause. It was not dragged from the Government; the Government listened to the debates and acknowledged much of what was said, and I hope that the House will support the new clause.

7.15 pm

Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): The new clause requires those who want to participate in a counter-demonstration to notify their intentions 14 days in advance. It represents a substantial response to many people's concerns, so Liberal Democrats support its fundamental aim. Indeed, this group of amendments is probably the most important that we shall discuss tonight.

The purpose of the Bill is to balance the rights of people to march against the rights of people to object to those marches. That will create a more level playing field, which will make parades much less of a sticking point and a cause of friction in the community.

I agree that it would be iniquitous if one group had to notify the police of its intentions 28 days in advance whereas others could arrange protests on the spot. Some counter-demonstrations seem to have become as traditional as the marches against which they protest. It would be grossly unfair if the original march were regulated but the counter-march were not. The new clause and the amendments will go a considerable way to addressing the bitterness that such an iniquity could cause.

I assume that the RUC was consulted on the new clause and that it will be pleased with it, as it should make it easier to police the contentious marches, which, as others have said tonight, represent only a tiny minority of the marches that take place each year in Northern Ireland.

I have a few concerns, which I shall briefly relate. The Minister should explain why different authorities will assess the cases for the counter-demonstration and the demonstration. I can see some logic to that, but there is a danger of creating unmatched messages and different interpretations of the validity of the two marches.

4 Feb 1998 : Column 1108

Subsection (2) of the new clause creates a loophole by requiring that people who propose to organise a counter-demonstration should give notice not later than 14 days before the meeting is to take place or,

"if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as it is reasonably practicable to give such notice."

We all know that there are trouble-makers; as other hon. Members have said, this provision is a licence to cause trouble. In what circumstances will 14 days after notice of the march give insufficient leeway for those planning a counter-demonstration? They will have a full two weeks in which to get their act together and formally make their intentions clear.

The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) expressed his concern about civil liberties. He made an important point. In theory, if the measures are mishandled, they could restrict civil liberties. It almost goes without saying that they have to be handled sensitively; if they are handled too strictly and restrictively, people will have a right to complain. Clearly, those issues are not absolutely clear-cut. A great deal of sensitivity is needed in balancing things that we may feel uncomfortable in permitting against concern that banning such things would simply restrict too much people's right to demonstrate or counter-demonstrate.

---